For the last week or so, I looked at the resolution and set about to argue some of the resolution’s points like this one,

5. WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the
consensus view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze
its nuclear weapons program in 2003,

My argument went like this,

Yes, indeed, the NIE confirmed that Iran had a vigorous nuclear weapons program that was suspended in late 2003. Coincidentally, it was just after we invaded Iraq and President Bush drew a line in the sand for Iran. The National Intelligence Estimate also says that they don’t expect Iran to “forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons.”

If the NIE expects Iran to continue it’s nuclear program, I expect my government to apply whatever diplomatic and/or military means necessary for our safety.

But after going through most of the 12 Whereas’s in the resolution, my head went back to the same spot. Conservative, moderate, or liberal; nobody in their right mind desires war with any nation, so arguing the points is rather silly. I agree, let’s work to avoid war with Iran. I happen to think that the UN, the US and many other countries have been tirelessly using diplomacy for decades, but there I go again arguing points. What bothers me about this resolution and the troops home resolution before it, is that they are subversive to our established participatory government and the groups promoting them have a bigger agenda than just this situation in the Middle East.

IPS founded the Transnational Institute (TNI) in 1973 to bring together public scholars from around the world to tackle the growing divide between rich and poor nations and peoples around the world.

It’s okay to read this as promoting socialism and communism, because it is, and that is the bigger agenda.

To the point of subversion, which can be a tough to grasp in this setting, but I’ve highlighted a few words in this,

This is the origin of its modern use, which refers to attempts to overthrow structures of authority, including the state. In this respect, it has taken over from ‘sedition’ as the name for illicit rebellion, though the connotations of the two words are rather different, sedition suggesting overt attacks on institutions, subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other. answers.com

So subversion is about overthrowing the structures of authority and upsetting the status quo, the way we do things. One might ask how that applies here since this appears to be on the up and up with it going before the COB for review. But our structure of authority, the way we do things, is that for national matters, we voters elect a president and representatives to Congress. That is how our nation works so that everyone gets a fair vote.

We may not always like what our representatives do, but within the structure of our government there is a remedy for that situation. We individual voters who they represent, can urge them to change their position and with enough voter support, they can be replaced during the next election cycle. To work outside this established system erodes our form of democracy and is plainly subversive. A few points in the resolution also plainly support subversion.

13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham hereby urges
the Bush Administration…

14. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bellingham urges Congress…

There is no structure of authority on national matters between the City of Bellingham and the President’s administration. There is no structure of authority on national matters between the City of Bellingham and Congress that we individual voters elected as our representation. Why should the City of Bellingham urge my representatives to do anything? Marie Marchand and Gene Marx of the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center said it all in a Herald opinion piece.

So why, you ask, is the city council stepping in once again to consider another resolution, this time opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran?

Simple. If our local elected officials won’t, then who will?

They don’t approve and/or their parent group doesn’t approve of the actions taken by the representatives we elected, so they are using the City of Bellingham in an attempt to get a louder voice. Essentially to yell over and drown out our individual voices in our government.

Their is no voter ballot signed by the City of Bellingham. No, my representatives represent me, not the City of Bellingham. We should all be infuriated with any group, including the City of Bellingham, who attempts to diminish our voice in our government.

I don’t live in Bellingham and even if I did, The City of Bellingham should mind their own business and stay out of my business with my my elected representation.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 at 7:57 am and is filed under Local Issue, National Issue. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Subversive resolution in Bellingham?”

Wally, I agree with you 100% this is a waste of time (and taxpayer dollars) for the COB to take up. But, just as the local City government has no right to take on this issue, neither does our federal government have any authorization to attack Iran for developing their own nuclear program.

I apologize for your comment being thrown into my spam penalty box for including 2 links.

Thanks for thinking this was thoughtful. My thoughts on the post started that way, but this post ended up being a little more on the emotional side. I had a link I was going to add into this post, so in minute or two I’ll add it and a link to your post, which I did enjoy reading by the way.

Thank you for a thoughtful review of the City’s Resolution opposing U.S. miltary intervention in Iran.

On May 22, 2008, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Pence introduced House Concurent Resoution 362 to express the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes. At filing, the Resolution had 220 co-sponsors from both parties.

The final “Whereas” states: “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.”

Voters elect members of U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate to address matters of foreign policy, stability in the Middle East and national security.

The City of Bellingham does not have the authority to tackle this issue, so I have no idea why it’s on Monday night’s agenda. The funds used by City staff to prepare the Resolution are badly needed by neighborhood organizations and other city programs to address local issues.